Re: binxo

["Jorge J. Llambías" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

Lojbab:
>>Would you say:
>>
>>        mi binxo lo se fraso
>>        There is at least one French speaker x such that I become x.
>
>Which is one reason why I do not accept that as a translation of your
>Lojban.

Ok, would you say:

            da poi se fraso zo'u mi binxo da
            There is at least one French speaker x such that I become x.

>>If we were to accept {mi binxo lo se fraso}, then we lose the connection
>>with predicate logic.
>
>Oh come on.  This sounds like inferring that djuno would require a
metaphysics
>place to be talking about truth implies that I think that a predicate with
>such a place cannot exist.

What? I don't understand what you're saying. I don't see the connection,
nor do I see why there would be such implication in any case.

>Are you claiming that such a statement is not
>covered by predicate logic?

Not at all. "I become a French speaker" can certainly be covered by
predicate logic. The question here is how is it covered? One way
is with a simple predicate broda = "x1 becomes a French speaker",
then we have: {mi broda} = "I become a French speaker". I don't
think we disagree about that. For example broda could be {selfrasybi'o}.

Another way is with a predicate brode = "x1 acquires property x2".
Then we have {mi brode le ka se fraso}. Again, I presume we
don't disagree there. Brode could be {cpacu}.

Now, is it possible to have a consistent predicate brodi =
"x1 becomes x2" where x1 and x2 are objects? Maybe it is
possible, but I see a lot of complications if we take predicate
logic seriously. Of course there's no problem if we don't mind
being a bit sloppy.

>mi binxo lo se fraso means "I become a French speaker".
>mi binxo le ka se fraso means "I become a specific-in-mind-property of
>French speakers" and seems quite strange to me.

Right, that's why I said the wording of the gi'uste suggested the
first. As you say, your wording for the property version is quite strange.

>What you seem to want is for binxo to be identical to
>co'a ckaji

Or at least very similar. (Nothing new here. {cfari} is in the same
sense identical to {co'a fasnu}, and I'm sure I could find other
similar cases if I search for them.)

>I think that co'a ckaji covers the predicate logic inferences that you wish
>to associate with binxo.

Yes, I think it does. My problem is not whether it's covered elsewhere.
My problem is whether or not there is something incoherent with
the object-object version of {binxo}.

co'o mi'e xorxes